Creative differences

When I was a young kid, I barely looked at the credits on my comic books. Oh, I read them enough to know that Stan was Smilin' and Jack was Jumpin' or whatever they were doing that particular month, but straight credits without the personalization? No interest whatsoever. Why would I? From a seven-year-old's point of view, the comics were pretty much always the same regardless of who was making them--the good guys fought the bad guys, and you worried a little but knew they would win in the end even if it took a while sometimes. They always talked the same, pretty much, and they always looked the same, pretty much.

When I was an older kid, I started to notice the art, and could identify artists I particularly liked (George Perez, mainly, in those days, and later Jim Starlin or John Byrne) and be particularly pleased when they were on a book I read. I noticed the difference between, say, John Buscema and Carmine Infantino :). I still didn't notice a lot of difference between writers; although I recognized the names, and although I've always been a reader who focuses on the words far more than the images, it still seemed to me that a good comic writer was one who could tell stories without their work distracting from the final product--whose work would blend seamlessly with what had gone before. That a good writer was one whose writing didn't really stand out. (And it's certainly true that the artists I considered stand-outs did interfere with the flow of the story as I read, in the sense that I'd be reading along, see a particularly neat image of Iron Man's armor reflecting the light, think "whoa!" and stop to look at it.)

These days, of course, people know and can identify writers almost as well as they can artists. Fans are more discerning, know who's good with plots, who's good with dialogue, who's good with characterization. Part of this has to do with the older fan base, I'm sure. Part has to do with the internet, which provides opportunities for folks to learn a bit about this stuff--to put a name to the things that they sort of noticed anyway. (It also provides opportunities to lose one's individual voice, to have one's opinions beaten down by those who disagree, or to take on points of view really aren't one's own.)

I think a lot, though, has to do with it being far more acceptable now for a writer to put his or her individual stamp on a book. It's more acceptable for a book to change with a new writer.

Not that there isn't still a value placed on consistency. Certainly the fans object when an old favorite is given a creative makeover and significant changes result (think of Frenchie), but as far as smaller changes go, changes that are really just a matter of creative interpretation, that's different. A Bendis book is recognizably a Bendis book, and people may make jokes about it, but when you pick one up you know you're going to see characters who actually relate to each other in complex ways. Simone is also known for good relationships, as well as strong characters and a lot of humor.

Thirty years ago, would I have been able to identify particular characteristics of the writing of Roy Thomas or Jim Shooter? Probably not. Partly because, well, I was a kid, but partly I don't think there were as many acceptable writing styles within the industry as there are now. And I think there may have been a greater importance placed on things not changing too much between writers.

The result is that these days there are fans who follow writers just as others follow titles or characters. (I'm not sure when artist-followers started, but it was a while ago.) I'm not a writer-follower in the sense of reading everything by a given writer, but I'll admit that if I'm on the fence about a book, and notice that Ed Brubaker or Gail Simone is writing it, that'll probably push me into giving it a try. That's more than I ever did for any particular artist.